ASP and Canon 5D3 mRaw/sRaw images

[MikeFromMesa]

ASP has traditionally been able to properly process all of Canon's raw image types - raw/mraw/sraw images. When I use ASP on all 3 file types from a Canon 60D it has no problem properly converting the images and there is no difference (other than the size) in the way the image appears. However ASP appears unable to procerly process the mraw/sraw images from a 5D3. I have attached the images ASP creates from all 3 raw formats.

Many editors specifically state that they do not process Canon's mRaw and sRaw images, but ASP has not had a problem in the past so I am surprised at it's inability to process them from the 5D3. Perhaps someone at Corel will see this issue and issue a fix? I have also posted this on the regular ASP forum but thought it might catch the attention of one of Corel's ASP software attention if I also posted it on this bug forum.

[ogrizzo]

To report bugs, you'd better feed the monkey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/ASPFeedback

[MikeFromMesa]

Thank you for letting me know. I have completed the response and uploaded the files.

[Loup-marin]

This is "normal".
DxO and LR does not read compressed formats from Canon.

[MikeFromMesa]

I do not think this is normal for ASP. ASP does read mRaw and sRaw images from other Canon cameras - for example my wife's 60D mRaw and sRaw and my old 600D mRaw and sRaw images are handled perfectly by ASP. The only Canon camera with which I have seen this is the 5D3 and that is why I think it is a bug.

And your statement about Dxo and LR do not seem to me to apply. First of all Dxo specifically states that it does not handle mRaw and sRaw images and is consistent for all Canon cameras that I have used. Second, Lightroom does properly handle mRaw and sRaw images, so I do not think your statement applies here.

[KeithR]

This is "normal".
DxO and LR does not read compressed formats from Canon.

Nonsense - I've converted hundreds of mRaw files from my 7D in Lightroom.

[KeithR]

for example my wife's 60D mRaw and sRaw and my old 600D mRaw and sRaw images are handled perfectly by ASP. The only Canon camera with which I have seen this is the 5D3 and that is why I think it is a bug.

Mike,

most likely is that 5D Mk III sRaw and mRaw support in ASP isn't ready yet - a lot of converters (like Capture One, for example) roll out sRaw/mRaw support after support for the full Raws, for a given camera. It doesn't mean anything that other cameras' sRaws and mRaws might already be supported.

[MikeFromMesa]

most likely is that 5D Mk III sRaw and mRaw support in ASP isn't ready yet - a lot of converters (like Capture One, for example) roll out sRaw/mRaw support after support for the full Raws, for a given camera. It doesn't mean anything that other cameras' sRaws and mRaws might already be supported.

I expect that is correct. It is only a bug or, perhaps, not yet existing functionality. That is why I contacted ASP technical support to report the problem. I have no reason to believe that they won't fix it as soon as they get around to it.

[Denis de Gannes]

most likely is that 5D Mk III sRaw and mRaw support in ASP isn't ready yet - a lot of converters (like Capture One, for example) roll out sRaw/mRaw support after support for the full Raws, for a given camera. It doesn't mean anything that other cameras' sRaws and mRaws might already be supported.

I expect that is correct. It is only a bug or, perhaps, not yet existing functionality. That is why I contacted ASP technical support to report the problem. I have no reason to believe that they won't fix it as soon as they get around to it.

I would not view this as an issue, since sRaws and mRaws are not really raw files but partially processed raw files. The recipe is already done by the camera manufacturer's software so you are not getting a ASP processed raw file.

[MikeFromMesa]

I would not view this as an issue, since sRaws and mRaws are not really raw files but partially processed raw files. The recipe is already done by the camera manufacturer's software so you are not getting a ASP processed raw file.

It seems to me that this is missing the issue.

ASP properly processes mRaws and sRaws from the older Canon cameras - 500D, 600D, 650D, 7D - so why does it not properly process the mRaws and sRaws from the 5D3? If ASP did not process the smaller raw files from any of the earlier cameras it would be one thing, but to process the others properly but not from the 5D3 seems to me to be a bug. If this lack of proper processing was intentional it seems like a very inconsistent policy.

As to the smaller raw files themselves, I find them to be occasionally very useful. They do not have the resolution of full-size raw images but they are still raw and the user is able to exercise the full range of software adjustments on them unlike jpgs or even tiffs. There seems to me to be a real question as to whether or not a simple vacagion snapshot needs to be taken at 23MP when 15 might suffice. This is a personal decision, of course, but the option seems like a good one to me.

[afx]

... but they are still raw ...

They are not. Please check the facts first.
Glorified JPGs with a bit more latitude for adjustment...

cheers
afx

[EOS]

There seems to me to be a real question as to whether or not a simple vacagion snapshot needs to be taken at 23MP when 15 might suffice. This is a personal decision, of course, but the option seems like a good one to me.

if i answer this question is it: YES, i must be full size always!
now we see 1080p as default, but the door is open for 4k so that makes
you're vacaction pictures from 10 years of here .........

No, i don't understand mraw or sraw,
raw = the raw info of the sensor, so this is the full MP because the sensor is ?? megapixels.
i want the best of the camera, if i decided to make a jpg web version so it is

[MikeFromMesa]

... but they are still raw ...

They are not. Please check the facts first.
Glorified JPGs with a bit more latitude for adjustment...

mRaw and sRaw images are not "glorified jpgs". Saying it, even on a forum, does not make it true. These reduced size raw images are fully raw in the sense that ALL adjustments that can be made on their larger-size cousins can also be made on them. You might want to take a look at the Benefits section of this wikipedia article to see what the author considers to be the benefits of raw images. All of these also apply to mRaw and sRaw and, I would assume, the compressed raw images from other camera manufacturers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_image_format

If this is a matter of faith to you, then nothing that anyone can say will convince you. But all of these benefits apply to mRaw and sRaw as well as full-size raw images. You may not like them because there is some internal processing done to reduce the size of the data that that is your right, but they are raws.

[afx]

mRaw and sRaw images are not "glorified jpgs". Saying it, even on a forum, does not make it true.

Just because you are too lazy too look it up, does not negate what I wrote.
After all, the format is documented online.

These reduced size raw images are fully raw in the sense that ALL adjustments that can be made on their larger-size cousins can also be made on them.

Nope. Raw files use a simple TIFF encoding of the base data. mRAW and sRAW use a JPG encoding. Therefore the initial processing is significantly different.
After all, there is a reason why those pseudo raw files need extra effort on behalf of the raw converter writer to support them properly.
So while you can hide all that behind the UI, you still do not have a true RAW file.

You might want to take a look at the Benefits section of this wikipedia article to see what the author considers to be the benefits of raw images.

So how is this relevant for the distinction?
A raw file is not defined by the benefits you have in manipulating it, but by the contents.

All of these also apply to mRaw and sRaw and, I would assume, the compressed raw images from other camera manufacturers.

A compressed raw file is something completely different from the mangled sRAW and mRAW files where pixels have been binned and then encoded in JPG fashion.
Again, that information is easily available. After all, there is the DCRAW source code.

If this is a matter of faith to you, then nothing that anyone can say will convince you.

I prefer knowing to blind faith.

But all of these benefits apply to mRaw and sRaw as well as full-size raw images. You may not like them because there is some internal processing done to reduce the size of the data that that is your right, but they are raws.

They are binned and then encoded like JPGs (YCbCr). Definitely not raw (which would be CFA RGB).
They allow more processing than a regular JPG, yes, because the WB has not been fixed yet. But calling them RAW is an euphemism.
Just like a converted DNG is no longer a RAW file, an sRAW or mRAW file is not really a RAW file. The original sensor information has already been processed into something else.

cheers
afx

[spoilerhead]

imho a "RAW" File is what presents as closely as possible the output of the image sensor itself.
a m/sRAW is what i consider a HDR Jpeg (what it basically is) m/sRAW is demosaiced, thereby can't be "sensor data" anymore.